Security Cooperation Workforce Development Considerations

By Mr. Ira C. Queen

Security cooperation (SC) workforce development is a very complex issue, one that cannot be fully addressed or explained in a short paper, but I would like to offer some “food for thought” on this topic, which has become increasingly important as SC has increased in both proportion and significance within the U.S. Military’s mission set.  Since the SC workforce is composed of a mix of military, civilian, and contractor personnel, there is no “one size fits all” training solution. Also, since military personnel come from different services and different military specialties, and the civilians come from different career fields, they all need different types and different levels of training in order to be proficient at their role in the implementation of SC.

Based upon my experiences as an Army officer, as a Special Forces Operational Detachment Alpha (ODA) Commander, as a  FAO, as a contractor who conducted SC for the U.S. government and as a civilian government employee, I think I can provide some unique insights on how the Army could structure SC training for the general military population and a few of the personnel that spend a lot of time with partner nations (PNs).  The good news is that this training could easily be integrated into existing professional military education (PME) courses, which would place less of a burden on both the training base and the individual student.

Basic Level

While stationed in Europe during the last part of the Cold War, my units took part in NATO exercises, gunnery and exchanges as well as events involving USSR personnel stationed in what was then East Germany. From those experiences, I feel there is a need to start training our personnel on SC issues early on, especially in regard to international program security requirements (IPSR). After all, in 1999, the Deputy Secretary of Defense mandated training for “all DoD personnel responsible for negotiating, overseeing, managing, executing or otherwise participating in international activities…;” this mandate was subsequently formalized in DoD Directive 5230.20, and remains a current training requirement.

This could be done as part of the Army Basic Officer Leadership Course (BOLC), which is the first professional development course completed by officers after commissioning.  All junior NCOs should also receive this training, which could be split between the Basic Leaders Course (BLC) and the Advanced Leaders Course (ALC). This would not be in-depth training, but it would provide a broad brush on why we do SC. This would add context for them as to why there are foreign officers and NCOs in many of the technical and administrative courses that they attend; in addition, this orientation could introduce the basics of IPSR.

IPSR is a very important concept. At some point almost every junior enlisted person has or will take part in some exercise or event with foreign personnel. By training junior officers and NCOs, small unit leaders would understand the importance of preventing foreign personnel from access to night vision devices. They would understand why they cannot allow foreign personnel to take pictures of the interiors of or components associated with U.S. tanks, aircraft, or military vessels. They would be aware of requirements to get clearance from their Foreign Disclosure Officer as to what can be discussed and to what extent access and information can be granted during exercises and exchanges. We should all be aware that our weapons systems have capabilities and limitations that are releasable, open source information, but those that use the weapons systems should understand the importance of protecting the true capabilities and limitations of those systems from unauthorized release. 

Intermediate Level

As personnel move up in rank and responsibilities, they need additional training. This could occur when an officer attends the Captain’s Career Course (CCC) and when NCOs attend their Senior Leader Course (SLC).  This is necessary because they would be overseeing those first-line supervisors.  In theory, when their units are involved in international exchanges, they are more likely to expand beyond professional interaction into social interaction with the PN. They would need more training on “big picture” issues, including the roles that the Department of Defense (DoD) and SC play in our foreign policy, in coordination with the Department of State (DoS) and security assistance.  They would need to understand the different types of programs that are used to implement SC. They would need to be familiar with country-specific security cooperation sections (CSCS) of the theater campaign plans and recognize their connection with DoS integrated country strategy (ICS).  While they may not be involved in designing these plans, they should understand that everything they do when working with a PN needs to fit within and support these nested plans.

Advanced Level

All service FAOs and all special operations officers and NCOs would be at an intermediate level of SC education by the time they finished the CCC and/or SLC (or their equivalents in the other services). FAOs and special operations personnel need even more in-depth training in this area.

All FAOs and all personnel on an ODA, including the NCOs, routinely work with many different PNs. They need a much deeper understanding of the inner workings of SC, especially concerning legislation and policy issues. These personnel not only need to understand the CSCS and ICS, but they need to understand the development processes involved with these strategies and how to influence them, as well as where to find more information and details.

Currently new FAOs finish their graduate school programs and language instruction and then go “in-country” for the remainder of their initial training without in-depth knowledge of SC. We also have SOF personnel who finish their initial training, are assigned to an ODA and then deploy to work with PNs without in-depth SC training.

As an instructor at the Defense Institute of Security Cooperation Studies (DISCS), I have had the opportunity to work with many senior Army FAOs as well as senior and junior SOF personnel.  Almost all of them expressed the sentiment that they wished they had received SC training earlier in their careers; it would have made them more productive at their jobs. Having been an ODA commander and FAO, I can empathize with them as I picked up a lot of my SC training on the job. I had already worked in and out of several embassies, attended a foreign military academy, and held a staff position at a geographic combatant command (CCMD) before I received any formal SC training.

While those in non-FAO and non-special operations billets do not necessarily need advanced training as early in their careers, they would need to receive this level of training when they attend Intermediate Leader Education (ILE) and the Master Leader Course (MLC).

Normally very few officers below the grade of O-4 and very few NCOs below the grade of E-7 work SC issues at combatant commands (CCMDs), the Joint Staff, or the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). Also very few security cooperation organization (SCO) personnel working at a U.S. embassy are below the O-4/E-7 level. Some personnel below the O-4/E-7 level work SC issues at the service component commands, but they normally work for ILE graduates and they tend to be FAOs. Since ILE normally occurs very shortly after promotion to O-4, and MLC begins after promotion to E-7, this would provide the opportunity to baseline everyone.

If for some reason they were assigned to a position prior to ILE/MLC that warranted additional training, this could be provided as part of a separate online or in-residence course.  For example, personnel selected to serve in the recently organized security force assistance brigades (SFAB) should receive either the basic or intermediate training in SC prior to deployment, while their unit leaders should receive the advanced training.

Professional Level

ILE/MLC is the first level where Army personnel really start learning what we as a nation must do in order to build a military – in this case, our military. It is at this level that SC professionals should also begin to learn how to properly conduct SC program or activity assessments, monitoring and evaluations, the importance of the various defense institutions that allow us to operate as a military and how we develop them, how to develop SC intermediate military objectives (IMOs), how they fit into lines of effort (LOEs) and how different activities, events and investments (lines of activity) help us achieve those IMOs, as part of supporting LOEs, in order to achieve strategic objectives.  These are the personnel that should be the SC professionals at the component commands, CCMDs, Joint Staff, OSDefense, and at our embassies.

This training should be part of an “SC professional development track” and not optional; currently it is offered as a specialty track at ILE. As a part of such development, they should conduct case studies on countries in a specific regional area in which they would subsequently and repeated be deployed, similar to the regional orientation approached used in the development of FAOs and special operations personnel. They should be required to conduct in-depth analysis of “their” country or countries/regions. FAO and SOF training at the entry level already requires some of this, but they should be required to go deeper into topics such as the use of analytical tools concentrating on foreign area:  strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT); diplomatic, information, military, economic, financial, intelligence, and law enforcement (DIMEFIL) instruments of power; and PMESII-CTP (political, military, economic, social, information, infrastructure, culture, technological, and physical environment) factors. Assessments should become second nature to them. They should also learn how the U.S. military uses the JCIDS (Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System) process and the DOTMLPF-P (doctrine, organization, training, material, leadership and education, personnel, facilities and policy) framework to identify and fill capability gaps. They need to understand how the JCIDs process interacts with our various institutions, our acquisition process and our planning, programming, budgeting execution process to field and maintain our military. 

In addition to learning what the U.S. does at the institutional level in order to build and maintain our military, they should have training on the U.S. government interagency community so that they understand that DoD is responsible for ensuring U.S. defense strategy and policy priorities which must be closely synchronized with interagency security sector assistance (SSA) efforts, especially where a key objective is to strengthen the capacity and willingness of foreign security forces to operate alongside of, in lieu of, or in support of U.S. Forces. They need to understand that law enforcement, border security, and counterterrorism are just a few areas where the Departments of the Treasury, Justice, and Homeland Security are the presumptive implementers of SSA.

If at this level non-SC professionals are assigned to or choose to take SC assignments -- such as someone who has spent many years as an attaché who will become a senior defense official/defense attaché (SDO/DATT) but has not yet been trained up to this level -- then obviously that person would need training to prepare them. FAO branch has already established the expectation that FAOs will serve at either a CCMD, the Joint Staff, or OSD, as well as at an embassy, in a SCO, or as an attaché before they can become an SDO/DATT. The Army FAO community is already well on the way to becoming the Army’s SC professionals.

Executive/Strategic Level

The next or most advanced level of training would be at the War College and Sergeants Major Academy. The Army War College currently offers a specialty track in SC. Since it will take 20-25 years for a new officer/NCO to reach the War College/Sergeants Major Academy, initially much of the training proposed in this article for junior personnel would initially or temporarily need to be taught at the War College/Sergeants Major Academy. For others it would simply need to be “baselined” like the rest of the Army does at ILE/MLC. It would not take long until all the non-SC personnel started to understand the importance of SC or for the SC professionals to all receive the level of training they need.

For the SC professionals attending the War College/Sergeants Major Academy, there could be separate, advanced training tracks which could focus more on strategic issues as well as their role in providing proper SC training for their subordinates. This specialized training might also include more in-depth legislation and policy instruction as well as more training and education on the interagency community.

Summary

I am in no way suggesting that we eliminate or completely revamp the training programs that already exist for those whom are already being assigned to SC assignments at embassies or at the various service and component commands; instead, I am suggesting a way to make sure that all Army (and other service) personnel receive training in appropriate levels or aspects of SC.

Admittedly my suggestions represent those of an Army officer who spent his entire military career involved with foreign security establishments. My hope is that other Army personnel and personnel from other services will read this and provide their experiences and suggestions to begin a general dialog to begin to improve and expand SC training.  Only by sharing experiences and ideas will we be able to truly implement appropriate training to professionalize our entire SCW.

About the Author

Ira C. Queen is a retired Army Special Forces officer and FAO and is currently an Assistant Professor of Security Cooperation Management at the Defense Institute of Security Cooperation Studies (DISCS), as well Course Manager several Courses at DISCS.  Mr. Queen has served as an International Political-Military Affairs Officer in the EUCOM J5, as the Chief of the ODC in Bucharest, Romania, and as a FAO for the DoS. In addition Mr. Queen has served on several Joint/Combined Interagency Task Forces.